In Schultz v. State, 923 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), the defendant was convicted of abandoning her nine-year-old daughter when the defendant left her and an eleven-year-old nephew at home from noon until 3:30 a.m. the next day. 879 S.W.2d at 378. The defendant did call the children periodically on the phone, but tragically both the daughter and nephew were killed in a fire while the defendant was gone. See id. at 378, 380-81. The defendant argued on appeal that because of her phone calls, the evidence was legally insufficient to show that she was aware of, but consciously disregarded, a substantial, unjustifiable, unreasonable risk of the children's death by fire. Id. at 380. Both the Amarillo Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals rejected this argument, instead holding that while the actor must intentionally abandon the child, the actor need not be aware of the unreasonable risk of harm to the child. See id. at 380, aff'd, 923 S.W.2d at 2-3. The Court of Criminal Appeals further explained that "abandoning" a child is not the same as "leaving" a child: "Appellant mistakenly believes that this interpretation of the statute punishes her actions without regard to the surrounding circumstances. On the contrary, by intentionally "abandoning" a child, the actor does more than merely intentionally "leave" the child. The actor intentionally leaves the child under a certain set of objectively unreasonable circumstances outlined in the definition of "abandons." This construction appears designed to punish actors who are aware of the dangerous circumstances even though, due to shortsightedness, lack of common sense, apathy, or just plain stupidity, they may not be aware that the circumstances are dangerous." Schultz, 923 S.W.2d at 4 n.6.